Anand Madhav Salve vs Vijaya Bank on 24 October, 2019

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Anand Madhav Salve vs Vijaya Bank on 24 October, 2019

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 14.02.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 22.09.2017 and first appeal dated 07.11.2017:-

Page 1 of 6 Page 2 of 6

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 22.09.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bank of Baroda, Baroda Corporate Centre, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai. (Earlier Vijaya Bank), seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 26.12.2017. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 07.11.2017. The First Appellate Authority did not pass any order. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 14.02.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant filed the instant appeal dated 14.02.2018 inter alia on the grounds that the respondent did not disclose the information.

4. The CPIO replied on 26.12.2017 that the information south was not readily available with them and disclosure of information would disproportionately divert the resources, hence, was exempted under section 7 (9) of the RTI Act.

5. The appellant and Shri Adhir Gupta, CPIO, Bank of Baroda, Bandra (respondent) attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant submitted that he was an employee of the Indian Audit and Accounts Department and was gathering data relating to loans given to the scheduled caste community through state channelizing agencies in Maharashtra. He submitted that the RBI had laid down its mandate through several circulars for the submission of the data and that the Head Office of each bank had an obligation to review the data relating to credits extended to the SC/STs. He further explained that the Corporation Bank, Bank of Maharashtra, Indian Overseas Bank have already shared the information and the respondent bank should also furnish the said information. The appellant referred to the circulars issued by the Reserve Bank of India in this regard and explained the necessity of disclosure of the information:

Page 3 of 6

(i) RBI issued circular vide DBOD No. BP.BC./C.469(86) dated 14.04.1981 on credit facility to SC/ST and the RBI had instructed to banks for not insisting on collection of deposit and disbursement of loan.

(ii) The RBI circular dated 05.11.1982 regarding grant of concessional finance to SC/ST Development Corporation was issued.

(iii) RBI circular dated 02.07.2007 was issued for special emphasis towards welfare of SC/ST and should be ensured that applicable subsidy is not held back while releasing the loan component till full payment of bank dues. Further, advances sanctioned to state sponsored organizations of SC/ST for the specific purpose and supply of inputs to and/or the marketing outputs of the beneficiaries viz. artisans, village and cottage industries of these organization, should be treated as priority sector advances. In 2007, it was also advised to create a special cell to monitor the flow of credit to SC/ST beneficiaries. The head office was instructed to periodical review on the basis of return and other data received from branches.

(iv) RBI/2008-09/43RPCD.NO.SP.BC.5/09.09.01/2008-09 (July 2008) stated that the National SC/ST Finance and Development Corporation has been set up under the administrative control of Ministry of Welfare. Therefore, banks should advise their branches/controlling offices to render all the necessary institutional support to enable the institution to achieve the desired objectives.

(v) The RBI circular dated 01.07.2014 states that a periodical review should be made by the Head Office of the banks of credit extended to SCs//STs on the basis of returns and other data received from the branches. The RBI circular dated 01.07.2017 was issued stating that the major gap or variation in credit flow to SC/ST on a year to year basis should be reported to the Board of the Bank for Page 4 of 6 review under the themes of "financial inclusion" in terms f the circular DBR NO.

BC. 93/29.67.001/2014-15 dated 14.05.2015.

(vi) As per the circular RBI/2019-20/06 FIDD.CO.GSSD.BC.No.03/09.09.01/2019- 20 dated 01.07.2019 under clause 6.1. which states that the cell would be responsible for collections of relevant information/data from the branches, consolidation thereof and submission of the requisite return to RBI and Government.

5.2. The respondent endorsed the reply given by the CPIO vide letter's dated 26.12.2017 that the information was voluminous and was exempted under section 7(9) of RTI Act. The CPIO submitted that the information was not recorded earlier and they shall prospectively create a field in their MIS system for schemes and programmes for grant of funds to the SCs and STs.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, feels that the respondent bank being an instrumentality of the state partly discharges government functions and is expected to act in accordance with the statutory duties conferred upon them. The Reserve Bank of India has conferred upon them duties of reporting and collecting information/data from branches towards credit flow to SCs and STs vide several circulars even through government agencies. It is noted that the respondent has not made any effort in complying with the circulars of Reserve bank of India. It is not the case that the information sought by the appellant does not exist or it is not concerned with the public authority. Besides, several other public sector banks including Bank of Maharashtra, Corporation Bank, Indian Overseas Bank, etc. have provided the information. In view of this, the respondent is directed that the information be collected and made available to the appellant within four months and submit a compliance report to this Commission Page 5 of 6 at the end of four months from the date of receipt of this order. In view of the evasive reply given by the respondent, the Registry of this Bench is directed to issue show cause notice to Shri Ramesh K. Miglani, the then CPIO, (earlier Vijaya Bank) and Shri Adhir Gupta, present CPIO to explain as to why penalty as per section 20 (1) of RTI Act may not be imposed upon each of them for not furnishing the information. All written submissions must reach this Commission within 21 days and the matter be posted for final hearing after four months.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 23.10.2019 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

1. BANK OF BARODA Baroda Corporate Centre, C-26, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051 (EARLIER VIJAYA BANK) THE F.A.A, BANK OF BARODA, Baroda Corporate Centre, C-26, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 ANAND MADHAV SALVE Page 6 of 6

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission